Business and management

Piracy

Prepare to repel boarders

SOMALI pirates can be persistent. They have attacked the Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by an American subsidiary of Denmark's Maersk Line, no fewer than five times, most recently in May. In the first attack, in 2009, the captain was held hostage until the US Navy rescued him. Then Maersk put private armed guards on the ship. Since then, it has successfully repelled all boarders.

Maersk says it is only arming a few ships plying the pirate-infested waters off East Africa. But the practice is spreading rapidly among shipping firms despite the cost, which can run to $100,000 per voyage for a four-man team. That is because the number of attacks, off Somalia and elsewhere, has kept growing despite the strengthening of naval patrols (see chart). The European Union's NAVFOR task-force, NATO warships and other navies patrol the waters off Somalia, but this has only pushed the pirates out into the open ocean, extending their attack zone towards India's coast and as far south as Mozambique's. This has forced the shipping industry, its insurers, and the national and international authorities that oversee them to accept that private armed guards are a necessity.

On October 11th British and American navy ships rescued an Italian cargo vessel seized the previous day in the Indian Ocean, after, somewhat improbably, finding a message in a bottle that the hostages threw overboard. But, such are the millions to be made from ransoms and cargo theft, this success is most unlikely to deter the pirates. In the past month, according to NAVFOR, ransoms have had to be paid to free two Greek-owned ships, leaving a further ten large vessels (and countless smaller ones) still in the pirates' hands, along with more than 250 hostages. A NATO commander has predicted that, with the end of the south-west monsoon season, pirate attacks will only increase in the coming months.

Until February the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents the world's merchant shipowners, opposed the use of armed guards—even as some members were discreetly hiring them. Since the chamber changed its line, the number of owners tooling up has accelerated. Now, says Simon Bennett, its spokesman, perhaps 20% of all ships passing through the risky parts of the Indian Ocean have armed guards aboard—typically retired marines or the like.

In recruiting armed security men, some shipowners have defied the laws of the countries where their vessels are registered. But governments, unable to provide the naval cover the shipowners want, are one by one legalising the practice. Spain, one of the earliest to let its fishing-boats carry armed guards, said on September 27th that they would now be allowed to use machineguns and other heavy weapons against the pirates' AK-47s.

Some countries, such as America and Denmark, have introduced licensing schemes for owners who want to arm their ships. Britain is among those still considering legalisation, and Greece's shipping industry is pressing its government to do likewise. The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO), while still not endorsing the practice, last month asked Somalia's neighbours to let armed merchant ships call at their ports. The ICS says it understands Egypt is to lift its ban on armed merchant ships' passage through the Suez canal. But the Indian government is still said to disapprove of armed merchant ships calling at its ports: their guards either have to go elsewhere or dump their weapons overboard.

An official inquiry in the Netherlands last month recommended that the government itself do the hiring of armed guards, enlisting them as temporary members of the armed forces. This is one potential way to ease worries about the spread of what would in effect be private navies on the high seas—something not seen since government-sponsored “privateers” were banned in the 19th century.

The IMO says armed guards should not be an alternative to using other defensive methods, such as knocking pirates into the sea with high-pressure hoses, or installing strengthened “citadels” on ships in which crews can take refuge from attacks. However, what is concentrating shipowners' minds, says Neil Smith of the Lloyd's Market Association (which represents underwriters on the London insurance market) is that no ship with armed guards has yet been taken by pirates. The question, he says, is whether as more ships arm themselves, the pirates will use more violent tactics.

Shipowners' insurers are worried that ill-trained guards without insurance of their own might shoot someone and land them with huge claims. North of England P&I, a shipowners' mutual-insurance club, is setting up a vetting scheme for security firms. Andrew Glen, one of its officials, says member companies have sometimes struggled to find suitable contractors, so it makes sense to compile a list of pre-approved ones for them to choose from. The scheme will ensure, among other things, that the security firms themselves have adequate indemnity cover.

There do not yet seem to have been any claims, or lawsuits, over the use of armed ship guards, says Tom Heinan of International Registries (which runs the Marshall Islands' shipping register). But shipowners using them could face legal action in various places: their own country, the flag state of their ship, the home countries of injured crewmen, and so on. All the more reason to ensure that the guards are competent and well-insured.

To be honest the answer to the question of why do pirates continue to attack ships despite navy patrols is the same as the answer to the question posed in the old joke 'why does a dog ...'

A Somali pirate, like anybody else, fears for his own life and will take steps to protect it. It seems fairly clear that he has little or no fear of the Royal Navy or the Spanish, French, Italian or indeed the American Navy (how can you fear someone who gives you a shower, a hot meal and a check up at the doctor rather than filling you with holes ?)They do however fear the Russians and the South Koreans - the answer as to why that is is very simple and does not need to be explained. Similarly, the pirates fear that private security men are probably likely to tangle with them - so best steer clear. There's nothing clever or sophisticated about this - the cause and effect is all frustratingly straightforward - but Western governments are so afraid of law suits and criticism by the legal profession and justice industry they prefer just to pose and pretend to act.

The world has been a little too appeasing to the pirates, firstly the ships should be able to protect themselves to do otherwise is just perpetuating the problem. Secondly the navies should actively pursue the pirates to their bases of operation and take them out.

I do wonder what Sir Francis Drake would make of the silly sentiments about high pressure hose, expressed in this article, had this method of defence against privateers been prevalent on the Spanish Main.

I find this arming business almost silly. Pirates will continue to take ships and hostages so long as they can board without resistance. Put a few armed grunts on the ship to pepper the little fishing boat and they might think twice trying to board.

The issue of legality is positively comical: laws that were drawn up to prevent enemy naval vessels from taking advantage of you or from the age-old private navies are being used to counter 100,000 ton+ freighters from carrying a handful of ex-soldiers with some big-boy toys.

Saying we don't need to arm the freighters because we can simply patrol is the argument that's been used, and it just doesn't hold up. Namely: the ocean is a huge place, and sadly the pirates don't hoist a giant skull'n'bones flag up to identify themselves, so they look like every other joe-shmoe fisherman until you see a crate of machine guns.

"completely outclassing" the pirates, what would you suggest? a million dollar naval missile? Not quite as much economic sense, and then the overkill is a bit much. A handful of high-caliber machine guns are just peachy; they're using fishing boats, not destroyers.

It may be worth considering a patrol service on the shipping lanes around Somalia that is funded by all users of the lane, given its a busy trade route. Guards on ships, weapons on ships etc provide a different set of problems in the vitiated security environment prevailing everywhere. The source location of these pirates is known, might as well patrol and shut that down (the latter being more complicated).

First of all, the IMO's "defensive" methods are a complete joke. These men with automatic weapons are firing at us, so lets shoot some water at them, and when that of course does not work, lets hide in a lockable "safe-room" so that the pirates can just take our ship anyways and hold us hostage. Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with those tactics... The truth of the matter is, unless you actually put something behind your words, the pirates will keep attacking and holding people hostage. The governments of the world can chastise the pirates all they like, they are obviously not listening. The facts speak for themselves, not a single ship with armed personnel on board have been attacked whereas ships that risk it with no guards go through the trade routes with fear and apprehension at every moment. First, the use of armed guards should be widely used, or if people are uncomfortable with that, use a system such as the U.S. Merchant Marines, which is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces that travels on civilian ships to protect them from such things as this. Also, the governments of the world need to stop beating around the bush and crush the pirate movement once and for all. We know where they are coming from and what they are doing, we must actually commit to making the world a safer and better place and root out evil wherever it might hide, not sit in our homes and say "stop being mean pirates, or we might do something eventually." Back up your words with actions.

Why hunt for a mouse when a baited trap is more efficient? Drones are used with great effect in dealing with terrorists. Why can't they be used against pirates? Both groups rely on guerilla tactics that render conventional methods of dealing with armed aggressors less than optimal. Actively searching a large area for a small, highly mobile, hidden target is time consuming and expensive. The drones can linger for great periods, quickly respond to attacks, track pirates back to their bases and then "deal" with them. This would also help to preserve some semblance of a chain of authority in the deployment of lethal force. Arming ships might start an "arms race" on the high seas and increase the probability of innocent merchantmen be injuried or worse. The drones might make this less likely.

Spain has the right idea in allowing their ships to be equipped with guards carrying machine guns to fend off the pirates. I'm sure the pirates are laughing at the ignorance and the lack of preparedness that is portrayed by ship after ship that they take over and hold hostage, despite all of the media attention especially. Why not ensure the safety of ships by allowing the country to assign armed military guards to each vessel. The article even spoke of no pirate incidents occurring on boats with armed guards. It's an effective scare tactic obviously. When it comes to the pirates using more dangerous tactics, the only way to prevent that is to be prepared, and set up alliances amongst countries where they will help each other out in times of need against piracy.

Many arguments can be made about whether you agree or disagree with the arming of these cargo ships, however the truth is, no ships with armed guards have been taken hostage. I believe that this statistic will continue to cause the percentage of armed guards to increase over ships that sail through the pirates territory. This is unti the system fails..

Pirates in Africa= I think a good, solution , to end that problem , is too put on the ships, a 12 crew off sharpshooters.3O years, Y myself, ,, iff theywas an Argentine, sharpshoorter, an using the ancient Mauser, Y could hit a man at 3OO mts. I am sure with moderm guns, you should reach easily 1 Km, so if litlle boat tries to aproax you, , you first downde leader , iff they continue too go, to you, you down, the man who handk[es de motorcraft, and afterwars , you shoot all off them. I am not sure, iff you know what a Dum Dum bullet is, its effect is devasting. Y understand that you let pirates free, they shoud be eliminated., and it is a very bad example, to pirates, left free. If you a rat in your house, you dont give food, to it. Fred the Argy

I think putting the armed gaurds on ships are a necessary and effective way to reduce the amount of attacks from pirates. The pirates have weapons and WILL use them, so it is unfare to tell the ships in risk of an attack that they cannot have protection.